If you are speaking to me, I didn't say you have to agree with anything.

You are supporting global warming orthodoxy, hardly an iconoclast. You are equivalent to those who tortured heretics during the Inquisition.

It is clear you have not a clue about the scientific process, scientific debate, reasonable discourse at all.

But then there is a Nobel Prize laureate a few doors down my street who doesn't understand such either!

Deliberate ignorance in the face of evidence means you're lying to yourself, as well as us. Lying need not be a conscious decision, plenty of people do it semi-consciously.

The evidence is clear that:

1. Before industrialization, until now, or in about 100 years, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly a third.

2. With CO2 and the sun inevitably comes warming.

3. The amount we are putting in the atmosphere is larger than natural sources can absorb.

The reason the Heartland Institute and other so-called think tanks are not scientific organizations is quite simple. They don't make reliable predictions. That's what scientists do, first and foremost. Theories aren't gauged by how cleverly you can retro-fit the data, but by how clever your predictions are, given the data.

To take Greenland ice cores as an example, we've been studying them so long that we can predict how large they will be in a given year, to within a high degree of accuracy. We can predict how much CO2 will be trapped inside, and how much pollen will be trapped inside, and many other factors as well, using actual science.

The Heartland Institute doesn't do anything of the sort. Their idea of science is to make lazy, ill-informed criticisms of real scientists, and yell about how no one takes valuable research time to refute their ignorant rants.

One notes that the "shoot the messenger" technique is NOT scientific. The disparagement of Heartland Institute as "not scientific" misses the point that the data PUBLISHED ON THAT SITE was reprinted from Environment and Climate News, a reputable scientific publication.

But heck, this is getting tiresome.

We report, you decide.

1) I have not claimed that mankind has NOT contributed to the CO2.

2) My point all along has been that a) CO2, by all evidence, is a minor player in any greenhouse effect. b) The increase by whatever degree one assigns to it is not attributable solely to human activity. Indeed, other factors play a role that is ESTIMATED by the scientists i presented to be 300 times more important. (NOTE: THESE ARE SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATES, NOT GOSPEL TRUTHS!)

3) Not agreeing with you is NOT equivalent to lying, you pusillanimous jerk!

4) You need the book about learning to play nice in kindergarten before you are let out of your room again.

Environment and Climate News is merely a publication of the Heartland Institute. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environment_%26_Climate_News

It's certainly not considered scientifically reputable. It just has a scientician-like name.

"Analysis: Oil Refineries Not Damaging Houston’s Air Quality"

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=17169

I've lived in Houston, and I've also lived in Pasadena, Houston's neighbor, and I don't think that opinion is widely shared. It's a bit like a drunk telling you he doesn't stink.

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

Carbon Dioxide (Correlations with Temperature)

Climate Change (CO2-Temperature Correlations)

Climate History (CO2-Temperature Correlations)

CO2-Temperature Correlations

Temperature (Correlations with CO2)

Material preceded by an asterisk (*) was posted after this subject summary was written and therefore is not included in the summary. This material will be integrated into the summary at a later date.

Summary

* -- The Last Glacial Termination in Tropical Southeast Africa

* -- Southern Hemisphere Deglacial Warming and Atmospheric CO2 Increases

* -- East Siberian Arctic Temperatures of the Last Interglacial

* -- CO2, Methane and Temperature: More Insights from the Dome Concordia and Vostok Ice Cores

* -- New Antarctic Ice Core CO2 and Proxy Temperature Data

* -- Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations: AD 800-2000

* -- A New Ice Core from North Greenland

* -- Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be

* -- Half a Billion Years of CO2 and Climate

* -- 400,000 Years of Atmospheric CO2, Methane and Temperature Data: What Can They Tell Us?

* -- Reconstructing Past Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations from Stomatal Density Measurements of Leaf Macrofossils

* -- The Art of Swallowing Camels Just Got a Whole Lot Harder

* -- The Climate of Central Alaska During the Last Interglacial

Variations in Atmospheric CO2, Temperature and Global Ice Volume Derived from the Vostok Ice Core

The Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature Records of Dome Concordia, Antarctica

(Read 'em and weep.)

Since when do OPINIONS constitute science?

An Iconoclast is not required to believe:

That the earth is flat

That the moon landing was fake

That global warming caused by humans is a myth

Perhaps if I'd named myself Don Quixote, you'd have a valid criticism, and I should just be against everyone and everything. Just because I don't want to wear your little tinfoil hat, you're miffed, is all.

Nice job swatting down the morons. But they'll just keep coming up like weeds. Basically, anybody who writes, "You are equivalent to those who tortured heretics during the Inquisition" .... is a dillweed. Try herbicide.

...Fun goes. Sailfree, the tradition at Salon is to write funny letters in Paglia's thread. This thread is not your litter box!

I'm glad he's here to accurately and decisively tell all those hundreds of geologists, climatologists, environmental biologists, and Nobel Laureates exactly how they don't understand science or the scientific method (including the one who lives down the street from him, and Dr. Chu, the nominee for the Secretary of Energy).

Yeah, all they do is engage in "shoot the messenger" tactics by dismissing all this important data because it's linked to conservative policy institutes and may have some sort of agenda. Like Sailfree says "They report, you decide," just like that bastion of unbiased reporting... whatchamacallit ... some news channel.

I'm sure glad Sailfree doesn't lower himself to those standards by using ad hominem attacks on "Church of Global Warming."

Let's hear it for the Church of Global Warming Denial!